Next-gen Racing Graphics Face-off | (Next-gen means current-gen)

I said they don't want damage in GTS, not the franchise. Learn to read.

Oh and GT5 damage pre patch has still the best damage in sims? So ,post some flying wheels/partys like GP2 or the PC2 Audi R8.

Meanwhile i will post some pre GT5 damage model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHe2hzclB8
I don't know what this video is supposed to point out. Making observations, though:
- yes, Pre-Gran Turismo 5 racing games did have damage
- Gran Turismo 5 had an all-new dynamic procedural damage system
- Post-Gran Turismo 5, even in 2017, were back to how it was pre-Gran Turismo 5

No matter how you spin it, that's not progress. Damage systems are poor across the board. It amazes me you think Project CARS 2 is impressive when it essentially looks like something pre-Gran Turismo 5.
 
Oh sure manufacturers do not want their cars to depict damage yet PC1 and 2, AC, R3E all have damage. Even Forza 7 has some parts flying off. Took out of your ass that sims doesn't decipt damage? Its only PD that doesn't "want" damage.
I'm sure it's true that manufacturers dictate the terms on how much damage PD can display as GT is much bigger and mainstream than all those other games put together. It also makes sense that damage modeling is uniform across all vehicles even if some manufacturers permit more damage than others because of balancing reasons. I am assuming that visual damage would have an affect on performance otherwise you could have wrecks that can finish in first place which would be pretty weird.
 
I don't know what this video is supposed to point out. Making observations, though:
- yes, Pre-Gran Turismo 5 racing games did have damage
- Gran Turismo 5 had an all-new dynamic procedural damage system
- Post-Gran Turismo 5, even in 2017, were back to how it was pre-Gran Turismo 5

No matter how you spin it, that's not progress. Damage systems are poor across the board. It amazes me you think Project CARS 2 is impressive when it essentially looks like something pre-Gran Turismo 5.
It amazes me that you can't see that GT5 damage system is still one of the wost in the sim market. even a game (GTR2) older than GT5 has more impressive damage with even flying parts , while GT5 have "titanium" cars. ;)

I'm sure it's true that manufacturers dictate the terms on how much damage PD can display as GT is much bigger and mainstream than all those other games put together. It also makes sense that damage modeling is uniform across all vehicles even if some manufacturers permit more damage than others because of balancing reasons. I am assuming that visual damage would have an affect on performance otherwise you could have wrecks that can finish in first place which would be pretty weird.
So the manufacturers dictating that damage must be worse than most other sims just harms the game. We may only cry.
 
I think the point is that neither of the cars you posted are road going models. The manufacturers most likely have different terms for the racing models.

Regardless, I don't see any doors opening on those Mercedes models, which is consistent with one of the posts linked in your quote.
Point should be obvious. Still much better than any GT game damage model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNHBy-B1oNc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6sHA5pEloM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k0zZD75eFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1g8Dym6nsE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqSkspwJxc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOajH5VTOzM

Now show me some better damage model on any road cars on GT5/S.

@Rodrigolfg Seems to me dude,you need to stay well away from Granturismo.
Whatever you see or experience in game is just going to ruin your day.

Obviously got a "Bug-Bear" with it ...(And thats ok)
So yeah..do yourself a favour and play something you enjoy.

Make sure the door doesn't hit you up-side the head on the way out.
Have a nice day :)
But I am staying away from GT until it becomes a good sim. This is a graphics face-off thread and not a GT acquisition thread ;)
 
You have to admit that GTS is missing lot's of features to be considered a sim.
That's not a shame, it's just not correct to call it a sim.
It's not totally useless (the same for Forza) because it can interest people in racing and give them the first steps towards a sim.
I considered this important because GTS and the other GranTurismo's (and Forza's) spend much more resources to graphics and it is much more important to them then other features (look at scapes), therefore it is remarkable that Project Cars 2 still looks great although it comes with a price of resources so that it can only achieve that graphical fidelity on PC.
 
It amazes me that you can't see that GT5 damage system is still one of the wost in the sim market. even a game (GTR2) older than GT5 has more impressive damage with even flying parts , while GT5 have "titanium" cars. ;)
I said this yesterday...

Right now I've not seen a racing game come close to that system yet today most people are pleased with Project CARS 2's implementation, even Forza Motorsport 7's (yes, which is better than Gran Turismo Sport's) when Gran Turismo 5's was in a different league.
...clearly indicating even Forza Motorsport 7 has a better damage system than Gran Turismo Sport.

The over-arching take away is you're happy with damage systems as they are right now, even though they are stuck in a state of generations past.
 
I said this yesterday...


...clearly indicating even Forza Motorsport 7 has a better damage system than Gran Turismo Sport.

The over-arching take away is you're happy with damage systems as they are right now, even though they are stuck in a state of generations past.
Uh? I was talking about GT5 there, not GTS. Learn to read. And where i said that i am happy with current damage systems? I am saying that there are much better damage models than the best GT model.
 
Uh? I was talking about GT5 there, not GTS. Learn to read. And where i said that i am happy with current damage systems? I am saying that there are much better damage models than the best GT model.

You're just arguing for absolutely nothing. We've explained it was a design choice clearly due the rules set by manufacturers. PD decided all vehicles displays very light damage for uniformity. We've explained and showed videos of PD being actually capable of this and still you choose to not comprehend. It's not a limitation, it's a design choice that you don't agree with. Get over it.
 
You have to admit that GTS is missing lot's of features to be considered a sim.
That's not a shame, it's just not correct to call it a sim.
It's not totally useless (the same for Forza) because it can interest people in racing and give them the first steps towards a sim.
I considered this important because GTS and the other GranTurismo's (and Forza's) spend much more resources to graphics and it is much more important to them then other features (look at scapes), therefore it is remarkable that Project Cars 2 still looks great although it comes with a price of resources so that it can only achieve that graphical fidelity on PC.
Other than tuning what are the differences? I don't have assess to those racing games.
 
You're just arguing for absolutely nothing. We've explained it was a design choice clearly due the rules set by manufacturers. PD decided all vehicles displays very light damage for uniformity. We've explained and showed videos of PD being actually capable of this and still you choose to not comprehend. It's not a limitation, it's a design choice that you don't agree with. Get over it.
Me and the meaning of this thread give zero fucks about the reasons why they do a bad damage system.
 
You have to learn, in this sad excuse for a thread, what does and what doesn't constitute graphics will change to suit the (PS4 exclusive) game of the moment. The GTS damage system is laughable compared to all of its peers.
 
Other than tuning what are the differences? I don't have assess to those racing games.
I think if you looked at the video that you already have a pretty good idea why Project Cars 2 is a sim and why GTS is not.
It's not something difficult to find out.
And I don't want to diss GTS it is just a different game with a focus much more oriented to graphics and more the car collector (although this iteration it has taken a step back and PC2 a step forward)
 
I think if you looked at the video that you already have a pretty good idea why Project Cars 2 is a sim and why GTS is not.
It's not something difficult to find out.
And I don't want to diss GTS it is just a different game with a focus much more oriented to graphics and more the car collector (although this iteration it has taken a step back and PC2 a step forward)
Can really say I see.
 
Uh? I was talking about GT5 there, not GTS. Learn to read. And where i said that i am happy with current damage systems? I am saying that there are much better damage models than the best GT model.
Yeah, sorry. I usually spell it out so it catches me out.

Gran Turismo 5's damage model, as when it ceased to be updated, is a shadow of it's former self. Gran Turismo Sport's damage model is insignificant in the whole scheme of things.

Gran Turismo 5's damage model introduced in a patch is had the potential to be better than everything else. At the time it was better than anything else, it just needed time to be fine-tuned. If you released that damage model in it's original form for Gran Turismo Sport it would be laughed at. However, if Polyphony Digital were given the grace, time and development it would be way ahead of everything else right now.

Mechanically it still is far ahead of anything else right now, such is the nature of a dynamic procedural damage system compared to pre-defined scratches, deformation and panel loss.
 
I think if you looked at the video that you already have a pretty good idea why Project Cars 2 is a sim and why GTS is not.
It's not something difficult to find out.
And I don't want to diss GTS it is just a different game with a focus much more oriented to graphics and more the car collector (although this iteration it has taken a step back and PC2 a step forward)
Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/160809/police-hone-high-speed-driving-skills-on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-academy-drivers-cant-race-in-real-life-because-theyre-too-fast
 
Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/160809/police-hone-high-speed-driving-skills-on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-academy-drivers-cant-race-in-real-life-because-theyre-too-fast
Very good post !
 
Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/160809/police-hone-high-speed-driving-skills-on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-academy-drivers-cant-race-in-real-life-because-theyre-too-fast
You have very good points and I agree with most of them.
But in this thread it is about graphics and I don't find it just that they both are called sims when they are both very different beasts.
There is a reason why DriveClub has such graphics or why GTS looks better on consoles then Project Cars 2 on consoles.
And it would be just to say why it is so (the complexity under the hood is one of the main reasons, although money and resources and probably other stuff counts to).
Otherwise it becomes, yeah but they are both sims so it is pretty weak from the developers that Project Cars 2 looks inferior on consoles then GTS.
But they also don't go to the same depth as sim.
And offcourse GTS and Forza can be useful to create muscle memory, using lines , etc..
But if you simplify it you could say the same thing about Forza Horizon (and maybe Driveclub to) you also should take the right lines, you should also learn to shift.
But at a more simpler level.
I have no problem to call them all sims as long at it is clear that the one is simulating much more and therefore it has consequences for the graphics to on consoles.
 
Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/160809/police-hone-high-speed-driving-skills-on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-academy-drivers-cant-race-in-real-life-because-theyre-too-fast
Now that's a post!
 
Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/160809/police-hone-high-speed-driving-skills-on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-academy-drivers-cant-race-in-real-life-because-theyre-too-fast
Expected no less.
 
Yeah, sorry. I usually spell it out so it catches me out.

Gran Turismo 5's damage model, as when it ceased to be updated, is a shadow of it's former self. Gran Turismo Sport's damage model is insignificant in the whole scheme of things.

Gran Turismo 5's damage model introduced in a patch is had the potential to be better than everything else. At the time it was better than anything else, it just needed time to be fine-tuned. If you released that damage model in it's original form for Gran Turismo Sport it would be laughed at. However, if Polyphony Digital were given the grace, time and development it would be way ahead of everything else right now.

Mechanically it still is far ahead of anything else right now, such is the nature of a dynamic procedural damage system compared to pre-defined scratches, deformation and panel loss.
There are videos on the link to GT planet about the visual damage system showing how poor it is even after some patches. Read the discussion too.